35mm Lux vs. Cron on Curvilinear Distortion

[dougfromtumwater]

Being an eyeglass wearer I recently came into the possession of a 0.58 M6TTL. I plan to procure a 35 mm ASPH lens for this body and I am weighing the strengths of the Lux ASPH and Cron ASPH. An aspect of lens performance which I have not been able to fully evaluate is the curvilinear distortion levels of these two lenses. Erwin's book states that the Cron has distortion visible only in the far corners whereas the Lux has distortion generally visible. I like architecture, would the Lux give me bowed walls?

[kristian dowling]

I am no professional when it comes to technical stuff such as

"curvilinear" distortion, but I can tell you that the distortion control

on the Lux Asph is not apparent through general examination of

slides (assuming that the angle is perfectly hotizontal) and

prints. Like any lens that is tilted, distortion is increased, but you

probably already know that.

 

<p>

 

Compared to other main brand competing outfits from Canon

and say Nikon, I would say that distortion control is better with

the Leica lens, but you can never beat a Tilt/Shift lens for

perspective distortion control. And if you are VERY serious about

this, you may want to try the R system with the 35mm lens

designed for architechture. The M system was never designed

for architectual photography, but is well corrected in distortion as

so much work goes into perfecting there lenses.

 

<p>

 

But to answer your question, without any experience with the

Cron-----tests that I have read suggest better control with the

Cron. But I would think that it would be minimally and not really

noticeably better. With a fast f/1.4 lens, distortion control isn't the

first priority in lens design. Compromises must be made.

Sometimes distortion is compromised ala Nikkon AIS 35mm

f/1.4 which suffers terribly.

[kristian dowling]

"but I can tell you that the distortion control on the Lux Asph is not

apparent through general examination of slides (assuming that

the angle is perfectly hotizontal) and prints"

 

<p>

 

i meant that i cannot see any distortion. Sorry :0

[eliot]

Kristian. You are confusing apparent perspective "distortion", which

occurs when any wide angle lens is tilted (eg., upward, to photograph

a tall building) with curvilinear distortion, which is an aberration

that needs to be corrected by the lens designer. Barrel distortion

is more prevalent in the 35/1.4 Slux and 50/1.4 Slux than the

corresponding Scrons. Similarly, the 28/2 Scron has a little more

distortion than the 28/2.8 Elmarit. However, the faster lenses are

still suitable for architectural subjects, unless you are

particularly sensitive to very small amounts of distortion visible at

the edges og the field.

 

<p>

 

Leica M lenses are well suited for architectural photography, which I

have been doing for years with wide angle M lenses. The only thing

you miss with the M system is a shift lens, which facilitates

architectural photography by allowing you to photograph a tall

structure without converging verticals (this lens has other uses

too). For this purpose, the Canon 24/3.5 TS (tilt-shift) EF-L lens

with any el-cheapo Canon EOS body is a good choice.

 

<p>

 

Doug. IMO, the 35/1.4 Slux (ASPH) is a perfectly good lens for

architecture. I am not particularly sensitive to very small degrees

of curvature at the edge of the field. Other people may find this

more objectionable.

[dougfromtumwater]

Thanks much to both of you. I do like the Lux very much.......